Santa Monica shooter built his own weapon

[RGinWA 816]

It's becoming obvious to me that you don't pay attention around here. There's all kinds of gun laws in this country. Surprisingly, criminals rarely obey them. Per my previous posts, some drugs are illegal, and yet this country is full of them.

Name the gun laws? Are weapons registered, are backgrounds checked, are sales reported, is gun safety mandatory or are owners licensed? Survey says NO! Every one of those doesn't deny anyone their firearm.

What exact laws are you referring to because aside from California's assault weapons ban there are a few common sense laws like checking who's purchasing the weapon of mass destruction.

I can walk out right now and buy every weapon at a local sporting goods store and all their ammo and that wouldn't raise any red flags.

And if I went to a gun show (and I have) I could arm an entire platoon and they'd be happy to help.

So if you're saying there are lots of laws, they sure aren't any laws that make a difference.

And your drug reference is BS. Drugs are illegal and people get drugs, yet weapons are wide open, so why try and reduce their numbers and thus reduce mass killings? That's a load of pure cr@p.

Why have any laws then...people will break them...that's brilliant.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

So you're for more gun laws and the enforcement of them? If you want illegals out...how about locking up those employing them? That will dry up most of the reasons they even come here.

There are few if any real gun laws...its about time we put up or shut up on the irresponsible sale's of deadly weapons. This is yet another reasons conservatives make little sense when towing the party line.

No gun laws, yet they spend all their time contemplating what a woman does with her body and how exactly they'll allow her to decide if she'll keep a pregnancy or not.

It's ridiculous and a huge reason that party is falling apart.

Ok slow down buckwheat you went in about 4 different directions there

1. Yes I agree lock up or rather fine the daylights out of people that hire them. easiest fix. All that build a wall, militarize the border ####### is hogwash. You got one right Yeah!

2. There are lots and lots of gun laws. The guy in this scenario got a gun illegally.

3. I don't know who this conservative party you keep talking about is, I am actually would be considered liberal on many issues.

4. I agree, focusing so much time on what should be a woman s personal choices, is stupid. Women s reproductive choices should not be interfered with by Government, or funded by Govt.

Ok you got Gun control, A woman's right to choose, and Illegal Immigrants all into one post.. Good Job. See we agreed on 2 out of 3 because I believe in personal liberty on all issues, not just the ones I agree with..

Name the gun laws? Are weapons registered, are backgrounds checked, are sales reported, is gun safety mandatory or are owners licensed? Survey says NO! Every one of those doesn't deny anyone their firearm.

What exact laws are you referring to because aside from California's assault weapons ban there are a few common sense laws like checking who's purchasing the weapon of mass destruction.

I can walk out right now and buy every weapon at a local sporting goods store and all their ammo and that wouldn't raise any red flags.

And if I went to a gun show (and I have) I could arm an entire platoon and they'd be happy to help.

So if you're saying there are lots of laws, they sure aren't any laws that make a difference.

And your drug reference is BS. Drugs are illegal and people get drugs, yet weapons are wide open, so why try and reduce their numbers and thus reduce mass killings? That's a load of pure cr@p.

Why have any laws then...people will break them...that's brilliant.

"""And your drug reference is BS. Drugs are illegal and people get drugs"""

Think about that for a while Grasshopper

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I see you're going to back to your usual policy. When losing an argument, bring out the name calling. Only took until page 3.

I never stated that you suggested outlawing printers or steel mills. My point is how far up the manufacturing process do you go? What's considered a "gun part?"

That is C

C. I have no idea idea how to respond to the overwhelming facts you presented, so I will just call you a nut job or insult you and move on, and claim I already answered the question. ( this covers the tin foil hat stupidity

[RGinWA 816]

Ok slow down buckwheat you went in about 4 different directions there

1. Yes I agree lock up or rather fine the daylights out of people that hire them. easiest fix. All that build a wall, militarize the border ####### is hogwash. You got one right Yeah!

2. There are lots and lots of gun laws. The guy in this scenario got a gun illegally.

3. I don't know who this conservative party you keep talking about is, I am actually would be considered liberal on many issues.

4. I agree, focusing so much time on what should be a woman s personal choices, is stupid. Women s reproductive choices should not be interfered with by Government, or funded by Govt.

Ok you got Gun control, A woman's right to choose, and Illegal Immigrants all into one post.. Good Job. See we agreed on 2 out of 3 because I believe in personal liberty on all issues, not just the ones I agree with..

"""And your drug reference is BS. Drugs are illegal and people get drugs"""

Think about that for a while Grasshopper

Drugs are illegal and people do decide to use drugs...its far different than that drug user forcing his/her addiction on me...like the lead projectiles from a weapon fired at 2800 feet per second. At the point the round exits the barrel MY personal liberty is not only infringed; it's actually ended in many cases. Who is the advocate of those unfortunate souls?

There may be something to say about some weapon owners being addicted to their weapon retention, but I know for a fact that drug abuse is a chemical need that outweighs the ability to make rational decisions. These same irrational ideas about weapon ownership seem to have the same effect on a small percentage of the population. An almost need to worship a lethal weapon.

I stated it before, I was in the USMC and I learned to use an M16A1 rifle, a 45 colt automatic, M60 Machine gun, grenades and assorted mines. Just on the M16, before one round went in that weapon I was forced to take hours upon hours of firearm safety and proper maintenance. (A lot of this due to the very shotty nature of this weapons performance in the field and the dangerous nature of the projectile.) I was also tested on each of these areas of concern. Not for my safety, but for everyone else in my squad, platoon and company.

I find it bizzare that any idiot can purchase an AR15, relatively the same weapon minus the fully automatic selector setting and get ZERO training? If you've ever seen what that bullet does once it hits a body and then travels through yet another body some may rethink this position on personal liberty...because a bunch of idiots with liberty to fire those weapons makes nobody downrange safe what so ever.

Maybe I find it bizarre because of my experiences in the Marines, but its still a fact you can have Military level weapons with no training and no checks. And yes you can get these illegally, but its easier to get them legally at this moment in history.

I believe you served as well and I know you wouldn't want to be in an armed service with the same discipline and training we apply to civilian weapon ownership. It would literally be too dangerous to serve.

Peace...

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Drugs are illegal and people do decide to use drugs...its far different than that drug user forcing his/her addiction on me...like the lead projectiles from a weapon fired at 2800 feet per second. At the point the round exits the barrel MY personal liberty is not only infringed; it's actually ended in many cases. Who is the advocate of those unfortunate souls?

There may be something to say about some weapon owners being addicted to their weapon retention, but I know for a fact that drug abuse is a chemical need that outweighs the ability to make rational decisions. These same irrational ideas about weapon ownership seem to have the same effect on a small percentage of the population. An almost need to worship a lethal weapon.

I stated it before, I was in the USMC and I learned to use an M16A1 rifle, a 45 colt automatic, M60 Machine gun, grenades and assorted mines. Just on the M16, before one round went in that weapon I was forced to take hours upon hours of firearm safety and proper maintenance. (A lot of this due to the very shotty nature of this weapons performance in the field and the dangerous nature of the projectile.) I was also tested on each of these areas of concern. Not for my safety, but for everyone else in my squad, platoon and company.

I find it bizzare that any idiot can purchase an AR15, relatively the same weapon minus the fully automatic selector setting and get ZERO training? If you've ever seen what that bullet does once it hits a body and then travels through yet another body some may rethink this position on personal liberty...because a bunch of idiots with liberty to fire those weapons makes nobody downrange safe what so ever.

Maybe I find it bizarre because of my experiences in the Marines, but its still a fact you can have Military level weapons with no training and no checks. And yes you can get these illegally, but its easier to get them legally at this moment in history.

I believe you served as well and I know you wouldn't want to be in an armed service with the same discipline and training we apply to civilian weapon ownership. It would literally be too dangerous to serve.

Peace...

So explain to me why you think we should ban an AR-15 that shoots a 5.56 round which you described as very dangerous but the almost identical round in a Remington 700 is ok. You don't understand weapons very well to have been a marine. I personal think a Mossberg 500 is way more leathal in a crowd than an AR-15.

we can have a sensible gun debate when you anti gun people stop all the crazy talk about banning guns because of the way they look, limiting bullet capacity etc.

[Ban Hammer 13,408]

I stated it before, I was in the USMC and I learned to use an M16A1 rifle, a 45 colt automatic, M60 Machine gun, grenades and assorted mines.

then you should know it's a semi automatic, not an automatic.....

[lostinblue 1,989]

then you should know it's a semi automatic, not an automatic.....

They just make stuff up as they go along.

[RGinWA 816]

So explain to me why you think we should ban an AR-15 that shoots a 5.56 round which you described as very dangerous but the almost identical round in a Remington 700 is ok. You don't understand weapons very well to have been a marine. I personal think a Mossberg 500 is way more leathal in a crowd than an AR-15.

we can have a sensible gun debate when you anti gun people stop all the crazy talk about banning guns because of the way they look, limiting bullet capacity etc.

I never suggested banning weapons already sold and I understand a Remington round is similar in it's size velocity. But they are different weapons. A bolt action weapon is less effective in mass killing than a gas powered semi-automatic rifle. I get you can kill with anything, that's a given. But as far as impulse killings that aren't planned a AK47, AR15 on Mini14 will do the trick and are often used. You're correct a shotgun does a better job up close, but again, a stock mossberg has limited rounds unless they attach a drum.

My only suggestion to this entire debate is to make sure those who obtain a weapon legally have some kind of training and background check. To shoot deer you need to have a gun safety course and I don't hear grumblings on that long standing mandatory training. The sad part is, you can get a lethal military style weapon to hunt humans and have less hassle than shooting a game animal.

I believe in the right to have arms...for one reason; because an armed electorate will always make the government less likely to decide the fate of it's people. On the other hand I wouldn't put most of the people I've met who are fanatical about the 2nd amendment on my firing line...I don't want an even worse tyrant to deal with after the carnage is over.

And for home use, my trusty pump 12 is good enough. I wouldn't fire a semi-automatic in a house for many reasons.

I have several weapons and a concealed weapon permit that I had a background check to obtain, but I'd gladly deal with a check for any future weapon purchases. I just don't see the issue with that kind of common sense. It's harder to buy a car?

[RGinWA 816]

They just make stuff up as they go along.

You've probably never served...so I'll pardon your ignorance on the lingo.

Yeah, all made up. That's what we do.

Freaking chicken-hawks...lol

Edited June 16, 2013 by RGinWA

[RGinWA 816]

then you should know it's a semi automatic, not an automatic.....

And for the "non-serving" genius of the group. I said what I meant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911_pistol

The M1911 is still carried by some U.S. forces. Its formal designation as of 1940 was Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45, M1911 for the original Model of 1911 or Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45, M1911A1 for the M1911A1, adopted in 1924. The designation changed to Pistol, Caliber .45, Automatic, M1911A1 in the Vietnam era.^[1] In total, the United States procured around 2.7 million M1911 and M1911A1 pistols in military contracts during its service life. The M1911 was replaced by the M9 pistol as the standard U.S. sidearm in the early 1990s, but due to its popularity among users, it has not been completely phased out. Modern M1911 variants are still in use by some units within the U.S. Army Special Forces, the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps.^[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911_pistol

It's not called that for what it is physically, its what we call it in the Corps. Some stuff you can't learn just being a smart @ss expert on the internet.

Have a great day.

Oooorah!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

then you should know it's a semi automatic, not an automatic.....

Editorial Note

Our loyal readers have pointed out that this weapon is not a true "automatic", i.e., you cannot hold down the trigger and fire off the full clip. The editors of the Doughboy Center have consulted and concluded, however, that since the general usage at the time and also the terminology applied by the manufacturer was "automatic" rather than the more accurate "semi-automatic" we will not change the current terminology.

http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/colt45.htm

Edited June 16, 2013 by The Patriot

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

They just make stuff up as they go along.

You, sir, are being ignorant.

Edited June 16, 2013 by The Patriot

[RGinWA 816]

Editorial Note

Our loyal readers have pointed out that this weapon is not a true "automatic", i.e., you cannot hold down the trigger and fire off the full clip. The editors of the Doughboy Center have consulted and concluded, however, that since the general usage at the time and also the terminology applied by the manufacturer was "automatic" rather than the more accurate "semi-automatic" we will not change the current terminology.

http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/colt45.htm

Nice...

I actually thought everyone knew that terminology, but alas I was incorrect.

But hey, when I make stuff up it's hard to know if it's accurate or not.

I guess I was lucky...lol

[Ban Hammer 13,408]

And for the "non-serving" genius of the group. I said what I meant.

sure, even though it's technically inaccurate. although i'm curious about who in the conversation is "non-serving"

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

You've probably never served...so I'll pardon your ignorance on the lingo.

Yeah, all made up. That's what we do.

Freaking chicken-hawks...lol

What year where you in ? I trained some Jar heads up in VA one time